On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:53:47AM -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > The extra compiler checking you get with the enums is kind of nice from
> an
> > API perspective. What exactly is the problem with enum values in the
> > contracts?
>
>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:53:47AM -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> The extra compiler checking you get with the enums is kind of nice from an
> API perspective. What exactly is the problem with enum values in the
> contracts?
You can't declare a check against an enum value for an API. So we can't
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> In writing the swing contracts for the Proton APIs, I've come across a
> few inconsistencies with the way state and return values are declared.
>
> In sasl.h the pn_sasl_state_t and pn_sasl_outcome_t values are declared
> using enums. Simi
In writing the swing contracts for the Proton APIs, I've come across a
few inconsistencies with the way state and return values are declared.
In sasl.h the pn_sasl_state_t and pn_sasl_outcome_t values are declared
using enums. Similarly, in engine.h the pn_disposition_t type is
declared using an e
